Bombay High Court

Shrikrushna S/O Pundalik Shelke And ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Police ... on 20 September, 2025

2025:BHC-NAG:9503-DB

919-B apl 154.21.odt
1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 154 OF 2021

1. Shrikrushna s/o Pundalik Shelke
Aged 42 Yrs.,
Occupation .: Agriculturist
R/o. Kumbhi Taq, Mangrulpir,
District Washim,
2. Anita w/o Shrikrushna Shelke,
Aged about 34 years
Occupation .: Agriculturist
R/o. Kumbhi Taq, Mangrulpir,
District Washim ...APPLICANT

// V E R S U S //

1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Asegaon, Tq.
Washim District Washim
2. Parvati Pundlik Shelke
Aged 30 years,
Occupation -Housewife,
R/o Kumbhi, Tah. Mangrulpir NON-APPLICANTS
District Washim, Maharashtra
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S.S. Dhengle, Advocate for applicants.
Mr Nikhil Joshi, APP for non-applicant No. 1/State.
Mr. J.B. Gandhi, Advocate for non-applicant No.2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
CLOSED FOR JUDGMENT :- 11.09.2025
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT :- 20.09.2025
919-B apl 154.21.odt
2

O R A L J U D G M E N T : (PER : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE J.)

1. Heard.

2. Admit. Heard finally by the consent of learned counsel

for the parties.

3. This is an application filed by the applicants for

quashing and setting aside First Information Report No.21/2016

registered on 22.02.2016 for offences punishable under Sections

334, 452, 435, 294 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian

Penal Code (for short, 'I.P.C.') registered with Police Station

Asegaon District Washim and consequent charge-sheet bearing

No.10/2016 dated 17.04.2016 along with Regular Criminal Case

No.93/2016. The said FIR was lodged by one Parvati Pundlik

Shelke resident of Kumbhi Police Station, Asegaon Taluka

Mangrulpir, District Washim.

4. According to said FIR the complainant/first informant

is the second wife of Pundlik and there are certain property
919-B apl 154.21.odt
3

disputes pending amongest Pundlik his son namely Shrikrushna

and applicant. It is further stated in the said FIR that on

20.02.2016 accused Shrikrushna and his wife Anita (applicants

herein) barged upon the house of non-applicant No.2 and threw

stones on her house and the roof. When she heard abuses, she

came out and saw the applicants standing out side. The accused

No.1 brought a sack of chilli powder from out side and threw it in

the courtyard of the first informant. On these allegations, it was

stated that the offences under Sections mentioned (supra) were

committed by the applicants herein. The applicants/original

accused have approached this Hon'ble Court for quashing of the

said FIR.

5. We have heard Mr. S. S. Dhengale, learned counsel for

the applicants, Mr. Nikhil Joshi, learned APP for State as also Mr.

J.B. Gandhi, learned Advocate for non-applicant No.2-original

complainant.

6. Mr. Dhengale, learned counsel for the applicants

submits that no offence as mentioned in various sections of the IPC
919-B apl 154.21.odt
4

as mentioned in the FIR is made out on a meaningful reading of

the averments in the FIR. He further submits that charge-sheet is

filed on completion of the investigation which contains statements

of various witnesses even do not support the case of prosecution.

7. Per contra learned APP for the State and learned

counsel for the non-applicant No.2 vehemently opposed the

submission for counsel of applicants and states that the

truthfulness or otherwise of the averments in the FIR can be

evaluated only after evidence is laid by the parties during the trial.

8. As can be seen from the said material Mr. Pundlik

Shelke had a wife namely Panchafula and son namely Shrikrushna.

The complainant in the First Information Report is Anita i.e. wife

of Shrikrushna, while the accused is second wife of Pundlik. It is

also admitted position on record that first wife of Pundlik namely

Panchfula Shelke expired on 20.08.2011 after which said Pundlik

Shelke performed second marriage with Parvati. It is this second

marriage which seems to be the bone of contentions between

parties. It can thus, safely be said that dispute is with respect to
919-B apl 154.21.odt
5

the share of the property and parties have been litigating in

various Forums. It can also be seen from the record that non-

applicant No.2 as well as her husband namely Shrikrushna had

filed various police complaints against the applicant as also

Pundlik Shelke some of which are as under:-

(a) FIR No.3012/2014 registered with Police Station

Asegaon for offence punishable under Sections 294 and 506 of the

I.P.C. in which after full fledge trial, Pundlik Shelke was acquitted

by the trial Court in RCC No.286/2014

(b) First Information Report No.172/2015

registered with Police Station, Mangrulpir for offence punishable

under Sections 354, 294, 323 and 506 read with 34 of the IPC

bearing RCC No.205/2016 which is pending.

dated 12.10.2016 which was subject matter of challenge before

this Court in APL No.237/2017 in which said First Information

Report and charge-sheet was set aside.

9. In the backdrop of these facts, we have perused the

FIR and consequent charge-sheet. Offences complained of are
919-B apl 154.21.odt
6

under Section 334, which speaks about voluntarily causing hurt on

provocation. Section 452 speaks about house-trespass after

preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restrain. This section

contemplates that who ever commits house-trespass, having made

preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any

person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting any

person in fear of hurt, shall be punished with description as

mentioned in said Section.

10. Section 435 speaks of mischief by fire or explosive

substance with intent to cause damage. As far as this section is

concerned, averments in the FIR and statements recorded by the

prosecution do not make out any offence. It is noteworthy to

mention that offence under Section 334 is bailable and non-

cognizable. The offence under Section 452 as stated above

contemplates house-trespass after preparation for hurt but there is

no such averments either in the FIR or in the statement of

prosecution witnesses. The Only allegation is, accused persons

were hurling abuse and brought a sack of chilli power and set it on

fire. Thus, offence under Section 452 is not made out in as much
919-B apl 154.21.odt
7

as house trespass as contemplated under Section 452 is not

made out. Section 442 of IPC which defines house-trespass

contemplates a criminal trespass by entering into or remaining in

any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling. It is not

even the informant's case that the accused persons entered into

her house and committed house trespass and thereby offence

under Section 452.

11. Section 294 of the IPC speaks about obscene acts and

songs. As can be seen from FIR in question there is nothing on

record to show that the accused did any obscene act in any public

place to the annoyance of others or has sung, recites or utters an

obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place.

Therefore in our opinion, offence under Section 294 is also not

made out.

12. As far as offences under Sections 503 and 506 are

concerned, they speak about criminal intimidation and

punishment for criminal intimidation respectively. However what

is a condition precedent for making out these offences is
919-B apl 154.21.odt
8

threatening another with any injury to his person reputation or

property with intent to cause alarm to that person to do or to omit

to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do.

Meaningful reading of the averments in the FIR would reveal that

nothing of such sort is stated in the said FIR.

13. In our view, therefore, no offences made under these

sections are made out. It is noteworthy to mention that the parties

are related inter-say and there are various police complaints as

also civil litigation filed against each other

14. It is also noteworthy to mention that admittedly civil

suit bearing RCC No.36/2013 is pending before the Civil Judge,

Junior Division, Mangrulpir between the same parties.

15. It can thus, be seen that no offence as stated in the

First Information Report is made out p rima-facie. The situation

would directly covered by the parameters laid down by Hon'ble

Apex Court in the celebrated judgment of State of Haryana and
919-B apl 154.21.odt
9

others vs. Bhajanlal and others reported in 1992 Supp(1)

Supreme Court Cases 335 where it is stated as under:-

"(1) Where the allegations made in the First
Information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at
their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in
the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the
same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make
out a case against the accused.

16. We have, therefore, no hesitation to hold that

continuation of criminal proceedings against applicants would

amount to an abuse of process of Court. We therefore, think it to

be a fit case for exercising our inherent powers under Section 482

of Code of Criminal Procedure.

17. It can be thus, seen that no offence as stated in FIR is

made out prima-facie. Criminal application is allowed.

18. Hence, we proceed to pass following order:-

ORDER

(i) The Criminal Application is allowed.

919-B apl 154.21.odt

(ii) We quashed and set aside First Information Report